I still remain unconvinced it was ILLEGAL (or should be for that matter)

[deleted]

Exactly. Now I AM a libertarian, and I think the idea that TAXPAYER MONEY was used to fund this CONGRESSIONAL "investigation" of television quiz shows (it all started with the $64,000 question actually), which as you stated, were not doing anything illegal in the first place, is just reprehensible. Goodwin was also an aggressive, ambitious young lawyer then who wanted a career in politics, and he saw this as a way to get public exposure. And it worked for him.

Unfortunately it was all part of the HUAC paranoia about the media in general, and the extreme, even childish mentality of people during the 1950s, during the birth of television, regarding the "truth" of what was being shown on television. Your average American then would have known nothing about television production, or how game shows were constructed (engineered) then and now to make them more exciting, much less the issue of trying to recruit more attractive candidates, teaching candidates how to be media friendly, shaping publicity, and so on.

This was clearly one of the worst examples of government showboating; can you imagine congressional hearings being held today in which the jersey shore crowd or the Kardashians were questioned regarding the "truth" of their "reality" shows? Or the "absolute truth" behind a show with contestants like American Idol? And then people went to jail for perjury based on their answers? Obviously in our modern culture such a thing would rightfully be regarded as absurd. As another poster stated, the government interference into the baseball and steroid use issue was bad enough. It was another abuse of power and waste of taxpayer money. The taxpayer does not need to be protected by the government from baseball players who may or may not have used steroids. Another absurd waste.

I do regard the ridiculous parents vs. rock bands crap of the 1980s (the PMRC) to be another example of outrageous government overreach, and a blatant attempt to win political favor (Tipper Gore was looking for an issue to make her husband the "values" democrat, and she seized on this one since evangelical Christians were already worked up over Ozzy et al. and the supposed apocalypse that was about to happen "any day now" in the 1980s). The fact that she organized the whole thing as "just a bunch of concerned mothers" rather than a more general approach to labeling content like the film industry had been doing for years showed that yet again it was all about politics.

"On Pet Rescue today, the clever stoat keeps everyone on their toes in Somerset!"

murphtones' post is key in the grand scheme of this debate. Perspective is what's important. In this day and age where we have shows like The Hills and anything else MTV pawns off as reality. We know what Reality TV is now and we're aware of the evolution the term "reality" has made over the decades. You even have shows that use the slogan, "Not reality. Actuality" as a way of deterring any of the connotations "reality" comes with. Think about that! The show doesn't want to be advertised as "Real" but as "Actual"!

We swim in this grey area of entertainment every day, and the public is aware of it. The same thing was happening in the 1950s with this particular show, but the public wasn't privy to it.

As murphtones said, it's all about perspective.

we shan't be telling your mother this, shan't we?

There is the point that most losing contestants on the show weren't given a chance in a rigged game. They werent paid off to take a dive, it was just the winner who was coached. If you are playing someone who has been given the answers you'll lose eventually no matter how much you know. They were victims of a confidence trick, they may have gone home with a couple of thousand dollars but much less than they could have won in an honest game. Now most confidence tricks dont leave the chump two or three grand richer and oblivious to the fact they have been had but the beauty of this scam was the money came from the sponsors who made tens of millions in increased sales.

In Herb Stempels case he was not paid all the money he had won on the show so had a legal grievance although to claim it all he would have to admit fraud. In hindsight the bad way Stempel was treated by the producers and presented as a nerd on TV was what made him blow the whistle. No-one else would as everyone made money and even the oblivious losing contestants made some money.

It became public knowledge that another show Dotto was rigged. There was no debate, a standby contestant called Edmund Hegelmier found a list of answers the winner Marie Winn had written before the show in the green room. He went to the press and CBS immediately took the show off the air. The FCC investigated every quiz show but the producers lied to them and no action could be taken without proof like they had on "Dotto".

After that the Journal-American was willing to print Herb Stempel's story which previously they hadn't been for fear of being sued. The NY DA's office then interviewed Stempel and smelt fraud. Even at the grand jury it was Herb's word against 150 other contestants, the producers and a written disclaimer signed by Stempel under duress. Probably because it seemed like a lone nut versus everyone else the judge sealed the proceedings to prevent Stempel slandering 150 people in open court where he has privilege. This is what got Congress interested along with the press attention. When Patty Duke eventually admitted it before congress, they knew the truth and Snodgrass provided "the smoking gun".

18 of the contestants and one producer were convicted of perjury and given suspended sentances.

Only Hegelmier went straight to the press.

For a transcipt of the PBS documentary go to:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/filmmore/transcript/index.html

He was working for an oversight committee which included oversight for the FCC. There may have been some FCC rules being broken and that's what he was looking into.

As to the OP's original point, what Enright and company were doing was NOT illegal. Nobody went to prison. It was more of an ethical and violation of the "public trust" issue. Television was in its infancy, and the rules, norms and guidelines for what was ethical in producing TV shows was totally unclear.

I tend to think the House Legislative Oversight Committee over-stretched its authority in this situation.

I suppose the FCC could have banned Enright and Berry from producing TV shows shown over public airways, but its another situation of over -stretching their authority.